Obama: Can Old Friendships Survive His Divisive Presidency?

(2) You can make the plane reservations without discussing your differences and, once there, try to direct the conversation toward non-Obama-related topics. From what you say, that will be difficult if not impossible, but you could say, “I really wanted to be with you and your husband, but I’m tired of politics and would love to talk about anything else.”

If it isn’t possible to steer away from her favorite topic, then say, “Jane, I’ve never wanted to argue with you over this, and I don’t intend to now, but we don’t see eye to eye politically. I’ve traveled across the country to be with you and don’t want our differing views to interfere. Let’s agree to disagree.”

This will doubtless cast a pall, but if you say you don’t want to argue, and then don’t, you can change the subject.

(3) You can visit her and apply the skunk analogy I discussed last week. Tell yourself, “I knew this was coming. It’s part of who Jane is, and I’ll do my best to think of something else while she’s venting over the ‘clowns’ and praising her idol. I didn’t come here to argue.”

Try to hear her praise of Obama as akin to the hum of the plane’s engine: it’s what makes her run. You don’t have to agree or engage, but merely to be there for her.

(4) If (3) is impossible because of your high blood pressure and the fact that you can’t sit there and nothear her, then don’t go. The Golden Rule doesn’t demand that we punish ourselves while doing unto others as we would have them do unto us. It doesn’t command us to wear a hair shirt.

If you don’t go, don’t beat yourself up. You owe it to yourself and your loved ones to stay as healthy as possible. Subjecting yourself to a nonstop barrage of Obamamania won’t help accomplish this goal. You can continue to be supportive to Jane by phone and email without staying under her roof. A truthful reason to give Jane is your own health: your hypertension has made long plane trips imprudent. The inevitable turbulence can cause a sudden spike in your blood pressure, placing you at grave risk.

I recommend (4): it isn’t solely Jane’s continued idolatry of Obama but also the intensity of her proselytizing and her intolerance of your views that makes this proposed visit inadvisable given your blood pressure.

Even if your blood pressure were naturally low, life is short and best spent among the tolerant.

– Belladonna Rogers

Do you have questions? Belladonna Rogers has answers. Send your questions or comments about politics, personal or cultural matters, or anything else that’s on your mind, and Belladonna will answer as many as possible. The names, geographic locations and email addresses of all advice-seekers will be kept confidential. Names and places and will be changed to protect the identity of the questioner. Send your questions or comments to: advice@pjmedia.com

Some of us who believe in strict compliance with the Constitution are called uncompromising for our beliefs. If you can compromise on our founding laws, why not compromise on other laws against murder, rape, and armed robbery as well? We can do the whole third world shebang, no? I sincerely hope you can see the basic disconnect here.

Support for Obama has become a litmus test for his true believers. Obama’s a different kind of political animal, always reminded me of a late night TV evangelist. “Just believe in me and I’ll give you hope and change.” “Your white guilt stain can be diminished, if you support my campaign.” No tough questions and only he could say his middle name. He appeared to be a young man in a hurry who had been told way too often that he was “special”. He was doing us a favor by running for public office, as his angry wife often reminded us.

When Obama loses–and he will–I will be watching the “Janes” to see how they cope and whether they take steps to repair relationships strained by overheated rhetoric. My heart goes out to “Troubled” and perhaps she will feel better if she sends the husband a card and letter, expressing support and good wishes.

I wonder what accounts for your faith that Obama will lose. I’d like to think the same thing but with the level of corruption that he & his minions practice on a daily basis coupled with the shaky field of Pub candidates, the odds may be stacked in O’s favor, unfortunately. JMO.

How true the above statement is. I think all of us conservatives have lost friendships since “the One” assumed office. In my case it has affected relations with some of my relatives. Freedom has its price.

Voyager, I think this is more akin to one friend joining a very strict cult and having other friends who haven’t joined the cult and who don’t share the values of the cult leader. I think it’s more like that than about normal political differences. It’s as if the cult-joining friend has gone off into a completely different universe and is somehow now unreachable by an old friend. That’s my take, anyway. I don’t think it’s just about the occupant of the Oval Office as a political figure, but more as a cult leader, which I believe Obama definitely is, and tried to be, from the start.

Next, there’s Obamneycare, whose blueprint Obama inherited from Mitt, but Obama foisted it on the other 49 States. Has anybody counted up the people who have already lost their health insurance, gone without medical care, and sickened and died on account of the Obamaconomy and Obamneycare? What about the people who will suffer that same fate as more and more health care rationing goes into effect? And what about the abortions that are being funded by tax money funneled to groups such as Planned Parenthood, and/or paid for by government-mandated insurance?

Don’t get me started on what might happen if Iran gets the atomic bomb and an effective delivery system. Obama could have stopped it, and deliberately didn’t.

I live in the greater NYC metropolitan area where liberals like ‘Jane’ abound. Liberals have long believed that conservatives were semi-human troglodytes — See James Burnham’s underappreciated 1964 classic Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism (Arlington House) — but for the most part before 2000, and quite generally before 1996, it was possible to maintain friendship with most liberals and progressives even if one were a classical liberal or an articulate conservative.

However, in my experience, since the combination of the Clinton impeachment, the 2000 election debacle and 9/11′s aftermath, it has become almost impossible. “Progressives” have hardened into much more openly socialist view and have become entirely intolerant and impervious to reasoned argument. I would say that over the past decade I have seen at least a dozen fairly close friendships, some of them of several decades’ standing, wither and die over liberal intolerance.

If you want to have a decent life, you have to prune. I knew a lot who became like her when I was at Hopkins.

For example there is a certain Dr. Dan W. at the NIMH. He thinks that my lack skepticism about social justice is either the result of poor education or a genetic problem of some sort. I don’t care if he bubble up like a salted slug.

The secret is the emphasis on compassion which is totally exculpatory, because it ignores what actions a person took to get them there. Such fine feelings allow a person free rein to self-pity and forgives any rage exercised on behalf of the imaged suffering other. A lot of pogroms have started with a preacher retelling The Passion, then people going after innocent Jews.

A 55-year long friendship and Troubled has NEVER expressed her political views to Jane??? Troubled is at least partially responsible for creating this Monster Obama Supporter.

As usual, Belladonna has done a comprehensive analysis–but I disagree with her recommendation of Solution #4 (stay home). I think Troubled almost OWES it to the lengthy friendship to choose option #1–give Jane a CHANCE to be a human being first and a political zealot second.

I’d also like to correct illusion of comments that ONLY leftist Obama supporters are the true believers who consider anyone who disagrees to be moral lepers. I have been a political junkie all my long long life, starting as an FDR girl in my teens, evolving over time into a Republican/Democrat (depending on presidential candidate) by the time Ike came along, and now I’ve gradually moved back to something like the “progressive” I was as a young woman. And I’ve always been outspoken (not like Jane, however, I don’t push politics when clearly those present are apolitical).

I can tell you that whether a person judges you as moral or immoral because of your political views is prevalent on both extremes of the political spectrum, and is a factor of personality more than beliefs. My mother was a Democrat like your friend Jane; my father was a Democrat perfectly willing to dialogue with rock-ribbed Republicans without affecting a friendship. I chose to be like my father.

In my first job at a major corporation in NYC (I was 20), at a drinking Christmas party (look at old movie Desk Set to see what I mean), I actually got into a political argument with one of the VPs–me supporting FDR and of course he a stalwart Republican. Looking back at our relative power positions I would have expected (thinking it over the next day) I’d be fired. I was not. He thought I was pretty interesting to speak frankly to power! Always brought it up after that in a kind of political teasing way. What I call a “generous” personality.

I have been in another situation where I started to talk politics over lunch with contemporaries in a job and they all said — for God’s sake, Maggy, don’t say that around the office, or Selma (she was only a 2-bit supervisor one step up from me) will make your life miserable. What I call a “tight,judgmental” personality.

These days I have friends who are totally into Rush Limbaugh (in fact in one case I was the one who urged her to listen to him just because I LIKE women to take an interest in politics and I listened to him). I can’t abide Limbaugh any more and, I have to be super-careful when visiting her home NOT to let conversation veer into Limbaugh–I almost think she’d drop ME, if I told her what I really think of her hero! Have to say, though, he has turned her from a political nothing, into a real acvtivist who calls her Congressman and follows politics intensely–and I APPROVE of that, even if I don’t agree with her views anymore. I don’t want to put things to that test–I suspect she when it comes to politics she has become a “true believer” with no patience with disagreement.

But generally I believe in being up front about where you are politically and if Troubled had done that YEARS ago, wouldn’t have problem with Jane now OR friendship would have ended long ago.

One thing I found out years and years ago when I was dating–liberals (on the whole) or at least liberal MEN were often cheapskates, and so I, of course, married a Republican. And I remember Chris Matthews (ardent liberal on MSNBC) saying of his stint when young as a Capitol policeman that the conservatives were by far more thoughtful and considerate to him in that lowly position, than were the liberals. Another thing I’ve learned listening to C-Span over the years that conservative husband/liberal wife is quite commmon and happy. Doesn’t work the other way around! Anybody know anything about that??

Would make for an interesting personality study–who ends up where, and what accounts for those who never change and those who like me have gone all around the mulberry bush politically speaking over 70 years–1930s-20ll. There was a book awhile back that made the case scientifically that people are BORN naturally conservative or naturally liberal in their views.

If so, that’s a good argument for NOT letting politics interfere with friendship — they can’t help it!!

I would find it interesting to read a column on why you went from progressive to conservative and back to progressive. What were the factors and arguments that brought you each way. How do you feel about the constitution and what constitutes following it or not. Perhaps you could write that column and submit it for publication on PJ. I would read it with great interest since I have gone from democrat to republican to conservative/constitutionalist in my views and I just can’t imagine why anyone would go the other way. Perhaps I can learn something. It’s hard but sometimes I do learn a new thing from time to time.

In a setting where one party is a liberal and the other a conservative, the conservative will always be the one who is admonished to “keep your mouth shut”. I have never known it to be otherwise. I believe that the explaination for this resides in the fact that the liberal is the advocate of a political philosophy that is largely a proven failure. And when you are an advocate of failure you are by definition out of touch with reality. Therefore you have no choice but to be angry, intolerant, and generally an opinionated blowhard that has to be handled with care. Thus the conservative always gets the advice which consists of “please don’t bring up politics”. I have begun to take the “screw ‘em” attitude. What do I need with such “friends” who are ardent advocates of the destruction of this magnificient, if not perfect, America? As to the article, call your liberal friend and tell her that she and her husband are in your prayers. That will really piss her off and you will get the “religious crackpot” treatment and never hear from her again. Some friend!

I think it is all in the personality of the people involved, not in which end of the political spectrum they inhabit. I’ve seen liberals told to “just shut up” as well as conservatives when they were in a vehement, angry, intolerant group that held the opposite views. Kindness, intelligence, good manners and a willingness to listen are not determinants of which political views you hold. Anyone who refers to everyone who holds differing views as a rude idiot is unworthy of my time, whether I agree with them or not.

I have found anecdotally that as people reach retirement age they somehow start to lean towards the Left. I wonder if it has anything to do with the incorrect perception that Republicans want to get rid of Social Security & Medicare.(They just want to change it so it can remain solvent.)

The article reads like a satirical how-to in regard to dealing with hyper-excessive liberal partisanship.

Jane’s problem is that she realizes that the Democratic Party has a dilemma like no other in its history. She knows that if Obama somehow gets another four the country will be so polarized, fractious, and angry at the end of his second term that she and her fellow dems can count on being out of real power for a generation. If they dump O next year they at least have a shot at avoiding this fate, but then they risk alienating their voter blocks and the loony left. So, if I had this sort of thing eating on the back of my mind every day I might want to live in a bubble like Jane just so I could cope.

My advice to the ‘friend’ is to dump Jane who sounds like she could snap almost any day now.

The problem here is not Jane’s political views. The problem is Jane’s overbearing nature and lack of respect for Troubled In Tucson. If the two did not live 2700 miles apart, Troubled would have long ago seen these same issues in other non-political aspects of Jane. The relationship would have ended years ago. Some suggestions:

1. Tear it. Send Jane a Palin-Coulter 2012 coffee mug as a Christmas gift and be done with it.

2. Go ahead with the visit. Match each of Jane’s Obama adorations with one about Sarah Palin. Have Rush Limbaugh on the radio every day.

3. Go ahead with the visit. The first time Jane starts with the political talk, say: “Jane, I came here to support you in your time of need, not to be indoctrinated into liberal thinking. I’ve been respectful enough of you and our friendship to avoid subjecting you to my political views, If you cannot reciprocate then I’m going home.” And follow through.

And this crystal clear observation by At The Rubicon cuts right to the heart of the question:

“The problem here is not Jane’s political views. The problem is Jane’s overbearing nature and lack of respect for Troubled In Tucson. If the two did not live 2700 miles apart, Troubled would have long ago seen these same issues in other non-political aspects of Jane.”

I couldn’t agree more. The problem is Jane’s “overbearing nature” and “lack of respect for Troubled in Tucson.” I would go so far as to say, and I regret not saying it in the column so I’ll say it here: even if Jane were a conservative, her need to proselytize and her lack of interest in, much less respect, for Troubled, is truly at the heart of this. Even if the two old friends saw eye to eye politically, I agree with At The Rubicon that a weekend with Jane would be very hard on Troubled from Tucson. Or, frankly, on anyone.

I cannot help but wonder just how deep is this friendship on account of the fact that “Troubled” has managed to keep an entire aspect of her character in the dark around Jane. Maybe I have a warped sense of what a deep friendship really is. True friends know most (if not all) aspects of one another.

I would suggest that “Troubled” give the visit a miss if she doesn’t think she can resolve the politics issue ahead of time. The last thing “Jane” needs, with the husband’s condition being what it is, is having somebody around that is likely to create more stress in her life than she has already (which is no fault of “Troubled” per se).

Concur. Losing Jane and any friends who would dump her based solely on choosing a different political party would really not be a loss. If they value your friendship so little, why do you value theirs so highly?

I still grieve for the friend I lost when I finally “came out of the closet” with her as a Conservative. The night it happened she was literally stunned speechless, her mouth hanging open. I laughed at her: “I’m the same person I was five minutes ago and I still love you!”
The next week she invited me to lunch but it turned out to be an “intervention”, with both she and her husband lambasting me over my views and ruining a good meal! I was deeply affronted by this.
When 2004 rolled around, she could no longer continue our friendship when she learned I voted for Bush.
We were passionate volunteers at a childrens’ nonprofit and I loved working with her….but I stopped after that and turned my energies elsewhere. I wondered how she liked it when Laura Bush came to town to spotlight the great work they were doing there!
I still miss my friend….and think I might call her….but not until after the 2012 election!

On the other hand, she might surprise you. I have a once-stridently-liberal friend who, having watched and listened to Glenn Beck only a few times is now prepared to assault the White House with torch and pitchfork. If your friend is like most liberals I know, she talks very rapidly and seamlessly nonstop when “discussing” politics. That’s because she’ doesn’t really believe the crap she’s spouting and fears, rightly, that if you do get a word in edgewise her whole intellectual and emotional world will collapse around her head. Funny thing is, it often does. Also, don’t underestimate Obama’s power to create conservatives where before there were only liberals. It may be that she’s already on the road to Damascus.

Be gentle; be tolerant. Remember always that she can convert, and if she does, she’ll be just as big a pain in the liberals’ communal ass as she is in yours.

You won’t have to worry about Jane or her husband anymore if Gingrich becomes president. They will simply jump off of a bridge because of the outcome of the election. Their liberalism will force them to do so. Problem solved.

How does that song go, “And the world, will be a better place, and the world, will be a better place, for you, for me…”

They will simply jump off of a bridge because of the outcome of the election. Their liberalism will force them to do so.

All the people who vowed to move to Canada after Bush “stole” the 2000 election vowed to move to Canada if he won in 2004 and stuck around to elect Obama in 2008. I expect they’ll stick around to sabotage all attempted economic reforms and anyone who attempts them–their reaction is going to make their Bush tantrums and assassination fantasies look like an episode of the Teletubbies.

My suggestion is to send Jane a copy of my latest novel, Nikita, telling her you enjoyed it thoroughly and thought she would too.

Without running the risk of attacking her ‘Anointed One’, since the book is fiction, you can wait and see if her reaction is really, really negative. If so, you can graciously beg off the visit citing that the added stress of your difference of opinion on the book would not be a positive atmosphere for her ailing husband.

The book is action, adventure, mystery but has a bit of satire built in. Here is an excerpt.

By the time the First Lady got to the master bedroom Sorosh Saji, the President of the United States, was lying face down diagonally across the king sized bed, his tuxedo still on.
“Are you sobbing Sorosh?” asked Lucile Saji, the President’s wife, not really surprised.
“That party was a disaster,” shouted the sobbing President kicking his feet. “I don’t want to have any more of them. Those people are all ungrateful and worse than that, they are all disrespectful.”
“Well,” said the First Lady, “the food was great, the wine even better and the entertainment was absolutely out of this world. As for the guests, fortunately, being First Lady, doesn’t stop boozed up actors, musicians and millionaires from flirting.”

This has been a familiar tale to me. In the case of an oldest friend we agree not to discuss politics although that clearly creates a great deal of tension for her, not for me. I really do not think it necessary that everyone I like agrees with me on politics or anything else.

For another, it was the end of the road, by her doing.

For a third we still occasionally communicate. I like her but we have never been in close contact. She regards my political conversion as akin to heresy , but on our shared history–the subject of our sometimes correspondence–we can still talk.

The first two are academics. The third has an administrative position at a university,

Have you, or anyone you know ever been conned? How did it happen? LIES, the con was built on LIES. Liberalism is a giant CON GAME of LIES told by the power elite, and believed by the easy to fool Dupes. This is why young liberals, after gaining real world experience, often become conservatives, but conservatives almost never become liberals. The Arlen Spectors of the world do so for power reasons not principle.
Who voted Obama into office? Generally it was blacks, hispanics, students, older single women, and intellectuals, with little “real world experience”. DUPES

If there is an irreconcilable difference with a person that is impossible to avoid and a source of irritation to both, the person is an acquaintance, not a friend. And if only one of the two is even aware of the issue, it can’t be a real friendship. Since life is short and resources are limited, few people can afford to make significant sacrifices for acquaintances. Troubled should beg off for health reasons. Then, if the acquantanceship has other benefits (mutual friends, shared interests), Troubled will sacrifice nothing for a acquaintance who wouldn’t appreciate the sacrifice anyway.

In earlier times, friendships were rarely threatened by political differences.

That’s demonstrably false. The Dreyfus Affair in France, for example, destroyed family relationships, and they never healed. Back in the late 60′s in the US, there was much rancour among citizens because of the war in Viet Nam. The public was also polarized in the 50′s with the McCarthy hearings. In fact, there have been a few occasions of great public division in the 20th century. It’s just been relatively quiet since the early 70′s—but the adrenaline is on the rise once more.

How condescending this comment is. So peremptory and pompous. And so mistaken.

I clicked on “ahem’s” moniker and what popped up but the country’s most slanted, least trustworthy newspaper. That explained everything– the tone of smug superiority, the factual errors, and the self-satisfaction.

ahem, you might want to re-think advertising that you’re with The New York Times. It has no credibility. Hasn’t since the early 60s.

Here is further evidence of the bigotry we see in The New York Times on a daily basis, and the reason millions of subscribers, myself included, have canceled their subscriptions:
From Glenn Reynolds on INSTAPUNDIT two days ago:

WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: New York Times Slimes Romney.

Here at Via Meadia, we have written extensively about how reports of impending American theocracy have been greatly exaggerated. Indeed, put into historical perspective, the religious forces acting upon American politics today are far gentler than those of generations past. But it appears that the New York Times remains unconvinced, as evidenced by a recent spate of alarmist editorials about the faith of Mitt Romney.

This is not about Governor Romney, and it is not about the faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS). Via Meadia takes no view at this early stage about the merits or demerits of the various candidates, and our inveterate Anglicanism gets in the way of embracing the Mormon faith. But bigotry is something that needs to be fought in all its forms; unreasonable fears and prejudices based on religion will always be with us, but such fears belong in the gutter among the wackos, the haters and the tin-foil hat brigades on both the right and the left. When they rise from the sewers and the swamps into mainstream publications and can be casually uttered in polite company by distinguished professors, something is going very wrong, and people who believe in the American way need to speak up. . . .

As far as I can make out, Professor Bloom is more elitist misanthrope than bigot; his hatred and loathing for Mormonism is part of a broader and deeper disgust with almost everything that the common people think or do in the contemporary United States. The essay drips with condescension and disdain; he hates and fears the Mormons not because they are different from most of their fellow citizens but because they are like them. . . . I say nothing about the motives of Professor Bloom or the New York Times. But so far as I know, neither has ever expressed any concern over the stout Mormon faith of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

I have a comment and a question. Comment: The New York Times would never spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about a Muslim candidate’s religion in this fashion. Question: When George Romney ran in 1968, was the New York Times fretting about his Mormonism?

UPDATE: Reader John Ward emails: “I don’t recall the NYT having a fit when Mo Udall was running for the Democrat nomination for president.” I guess only Republican Mormons are scary.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader John Burke writes:

I worked in Udall’s New York Presidential campaign in 1975-1976 (after my earlier choice, Birch Bayh, dropped out). Trust me when I say that no one among New York Democrats ever said, boo, about Udall being a Mormon, even though a host of candidates were competing furiously for support within the party (Udall, Bayh, Fred Harris, Scoop Jackson, Jimmy Carter). All these candidates were grilled closely and frequently about where they had stood on the war, where they stood on amnesty for draft resisters, what they had done to block Nixon’s Supreme Court nominations, and dozens of other then-current issues. This questioning took place in living rooms and Democratic clubs with small groups. I was deeply involved in all of this from mid-1975 when Bayh began to line up NY support. I must say that I don’t even recall being aware of Udall’s being a Mormon, although it is a long time ago. I certainly would recall if anyone had made an issue of it (I remember clearly the shades of differences the candidates had on other matters).

Sad to see the NYT becoming so much more bigoted than it was a generation ago.
Posted at 8:06 am by Glenn Reynolds

Belladonna! I have almost this exact situation. My friend has no husband but lives in Florida and needs eye surgery in January. She would like my help during this time. Since Obama was sworn in, we try to avoid politics. Alas, this is not always possible. When she announced, the one was brilliant, I ask how she knew. No school records, no achievements we know of, actually, the records are sealed! Why? She went to her bedroom and slammed the door.
Last year she declaired that Obama has not had a chance, Republicans are holding him back. WHAT? He had two years to do whatever he wanted, he gave us Obamacare. I do not believe this situation can change and I am sad to lose a 30 year friendship. I can not imagine this happening at any other time in history. Obama has so polarized/brainwashed normal Democrats, that I just don’t care to be in their company. A Republican President will not help our friendship, but it will certainly help our Country. Thanks for the article.

I don’t think this is a new phenomenon. I remember reading about Benjamin Franklin and his son and how they became estranged because of their different political beliefs. Of course the stakes were a lot higher than losing a nutty liberal “Friend”. I think you have deluded yourself into thinking that this woman is your true friend because she has never even inquired of your views on politics. That is something I would have done on an on going basis throughout our lives together. The fact that you never spoke up and offered her a divergent view is telling that you valued the friendship more than she did. The fact that she NEVER even asked you your opinion about politics says that she considers your opinion of no value and that you are probably not her first choice of friends or she considers you a “Sidekick” friend. You know like Tonto was to TLR. Or Robin to Batman. Always dependable and present but not equal. My advice is to go if you must but take an Ipod with you and every time she brings up Obama or his policies put your head set on and tap your foot to the beat while smiling.

I suspect you mistake classmate for friendship. I also suspect you have avoided discussing your views with Jane from the first moment you arrived at those views. That is because you knew her views, and that she would not respect yours. I sespect thst she knows that you are a conservative and has been taking advantage if your natural conservative respect for individuals. You believe you are her friend, unfortunately, you know she can not be your friend. Be prepared, and it is appropriate to mourn her loss. I mourn the loss of boyhood friends in like manner.

Well, I’d be happy to send the writer (or anyone else) a free PDF of my short book, “The Coming Collapse of the American Republic” to share with Jane. That might crack open her closed mind. I have a liberal brother who gets furious with me. Liberals have to believe that those who don’t agree with them are evil, stupid or both, and that’s hard for him, as he knows I’m neither. Thus my refusal to accept his opinions as facts is maddening to him. The idea that we could have a different worldview and different interpretations of the facts is threatening to them, because it raises the possibility that their religion-like faith is open to question. It’s like challenging the beliefs of a fundamental Muslim or a member of the Westboro Baptist Church—even listening to you is a betrayal of their faith, just as the divines wouldn’t even look into Galileo’s telescope. Leftists believe in every sort of diversity except diversity of thought. I have liberal friends who can exchange views and former friends who were so angry they broke contact. Small loss. I will link to this from my Old Jarhead blog.

Robert A. Hall
Author: The Coming Collapse of the American Republic
(All royalties go to a charity to help wounded veterans)
For a free PDF of my book, write tartanmarine(at)gmail.com

I’m a bit fuzzy on visits, so mostly I have questions. Like, you’re going- to do what? Hold her husband’s hand at the hospital? Take her to lunch? Hang out with her while she holds her husband’s hand? Provide comic relief- you know, that awful prank we pulled 55 years ago on Sister Theresa, when we dropped our pencils?

That’s my personal guess. She is in a fearful bind, probably lonely, unable to breathe clearly, probably pretty isolated emotionally at work and school (same thing, but still) and without many long-term emotional supports- bowling leagues, sunday school, and so on. Peter Schweizer has a couple of books out, well- he’s got the new, serious one- but there’s one about the differences between “makers and takers.” some of the differences are matters of friendship. Like, a conservative is more likely to get to know you by asking about you, while a liberal is likely to try and make friends by talking about themselves. I’m not sure she has a friend nearby asking how she is doing, or bringing her a casserole, or even visiting. She’s resorting to calling someone from out of state to come visit.

I suppose I also have questions like- Obama? Still? The most koolaid drinkers committed liberals I know are all vastly disappointed in the man. So is there some extra emotional vacancy that he’s filling? Is he a stand-in for all the good reasons to integrate schools, and support bussing across towns, and so on? Is he still the big basket of hope for peace in her class population? Is she in California? If so, she might be hoping that all the immigration experiences might be worth it- the kids will swim, not sink.

So, have you been her most reliable interlocuter? Have you always asked about her? I’m guessing she’s been relying on your kindness for years, even in mail and phone calls. She might not know the reasons you are different. She might attribute your kindness to personal quirks- you’ve always been nice, for genetics, for all she knows. I’ve a very liberal friend who landed in the hospital. Taking the very literal approach to the Bible- I went and visited. And then had the pleasure of reading her take on the visit- which is that I’m an amiable twit in an oppressive marriage who escaped the patriarchal ogre by the skin of my teeth for a day of lightsome joy in a hospital room. Rather than-my religious husband and I thought it was important that I go visit my friend, and that he’d take care of the young, extremely dependent children, and that I have manners, so I wouldn’t groan and carry on in the presence of an ill friend. It was, shall we say, an eye-opening essay. Anybody religious would have seen what I was doing from a mile away. I visit religious friends, and the whole sunday school has been there in force, with balloons and posters and candy bars and magazines. For my liberal friend- I was her only visitor. She had no idea what motivated me to show up. And the thing was- she didn’t need to know, or understand. She knew I went to church, but she didn’t know what all that entailed on my part. Her life was better for that visit-someone cared, and had done something about it.

So there’s a chance your liberal friend already relies on you to be kind and discreet and funny and humble and well-read. She might not understand the whole pattern, but she knows that she likes you, enough to keep track of you for over half a century.

What you are wondering is- if she saw the pattern, would she recoil? Would she be rude to you? I don’t know her. I don’t know how flexible she is in her kindnesses, or how oblivious. Would this affect your health? Is this a good enough reason to stay home, and not have the inconvenience of travel? Would you have to pack suddenly and leave in a huff? Would she out you to all your school acquaintances, and then say further nasty things? I wouldn’t want all of my childhood friends taken away while I’m trying to do something both nice and inconvenient, awkward and difficult.

I ended up in emergency on Friday afternoon for 3 hours after reading an email from my hard-headed, liberal and progressive brother-in-law concerning the recent row over leaked climategate emails. I suffer from a similar condition.

My advice is don’t go, and while you’re at it, tell her what’s up. We’re in too much trouble in this country to worry about hurt feelings, spilled milk or past relationships.

I have a friend from decades ago who wrote in a 2008 Christmas card how relieved she was that we finally had an intelligent, articulate & well-dressed President.

I gagged at reading that but did not reply with my long (long!) list of disclaimers.

I wasn’t silent at fear of losing her as a friend, but silent as in incredulous at the naiveté.

As “troubled” relates about her friend, mine as well has been influenced by the liberal enclaves in which she has dwelt all these many years, Silicon Valley, San Francisco, northern California, where spouting such stuff is de rigueur or you’re outta the “in” crowd.

It’s not so much the opinion per se as it is the arrogance and dogmatism of the opinion that offends.

Life was simpler when all we had were political differences. We all shared the same goals, but differed on the means to the same end – a healthy, happy republic. Now, the differences are ideological – we do not share the same goals and there are those who seek to fundamentally alter the republic, replace it with a social democracy. Respectful discourse has gone by the boards.

I know. I walked into this fray long ago. I learned who my “real” friends were. I had many friends with political differences, but soon lost those with ideological differences. They became as enemies – their choice, not mine.

Okay, so they attend the same primary school. They might attend the same prep school in high school. It’s not mentioned. They attend college together, and collect college friends together. One continues on through graduate school, while the other moves away to Arizona- I’m assuming a husband. The graduate student gets married as well, but remains in Liberal Valley. This doesn’t sound like a particularly scintillating husband- he stays near her career, while the other moves for her husband’s climb in ambition. So there’s thirty years of adulthood we’re counting, plus the years of childhood.

I’m thinking the grad student turned professor does most of the “brain talking” when they are on the phone. When I had young children, and I stayed home, the single moms with jobs were pretty sure their day was fascinating, while my had to be dull. They never bothered to ask what we were up to. If I mentioned a playgroup, they checked it against- I’m not sure what- but there was never a second question. So, I’m thinking, the phone calls are about the professor, and her classes, and her career. I’m not hearing about children, either, so I’m thinking maybe she was too busy to have kids? Kids do have a way of hip-checking one’s hockey game of “Mememememememe.”

So, our kind, humble, decent, mother of a dynamic guy and mother of children gets phone calls from a liberal dynamo who doesn’t even know where to begin asking questions. So she spends thirty years listening to her friend, and asking bits of questions- pretty much like she does with her children- and, like her children- the professor enjoys the treatment. And keeps calling back, telling herself it’s because she’s keeping a peasant informed on high matters, not “Wow, the peasant really is nice to me. My ego has swollen like a mumps-ridden gland each time I phone her.”

And, well, what does one talk about thirty years on, with a virtual stranger? Books, politics, television. And, well, with politics, one announces one’s virtue, but doesn’t necessarily enquire about another’s virtue. It’s like saying ” I’m an innocent and helpless virgin- are you a slut?” It’s just not done.

And, well, they are both women. It’s hard for Democrat women to imagine Republican women. I don’t know why. It just is.

Maybe the Democratic party has captured so much of our social imagination that it’s hard to imagine some other mode of being? I don’t know. I know I’ve said “I was at the Republican shindig last night…” and had my kids friends mothers- women who I thought were friends- tell me that Republicans were mean people who only cared about the rich. They know I’m not rich, not even in comparison to themselves- and that I’m nice to them- so I’m not sure how to respond. Democrat men, too, have a hard time imagining Republican women. That we have, you know, teeth, and shoes, and so on. No slave-rings on our neck, stuff like that.

So, there’s one woman burning up phone time talking about her career, and her notions, and so on, and really, probably not asking too much about the other woman, and now she has a dangerous time in her private life. Her husband is ill, and she casts about for support. She asks a woman who has been consistently kind for decades. And she probably hasn’t any idea that she’s been offensive, or prejudiced. Most people are blind to their own flaws, sometimes maddeningly, breathtakingly blind.

Our poor letter-writer thinks to herself,” I’ll have the full breathmint in the face exhale of all my phone-call slings and arrows. Is it worth it? Can I handle it? I’m frail, too.” Can she ask for all politics to be off the table? For normal people- this is easy. They can talk about sports, or books, or the weather, or their gardens, or their grandkids, or Susan Boyle’s next song, or technology, or their car’s new heating pad back-rest. We don’t know that the LW’s lifetime friend is in this category of normal. Or that the LW is in sufficient good health to survive the slings and arrows of an ill-mannered host. And the host is in emotional extremis, as well, and less likely to guard her tongue.

I suppose my question is- are we talking about conservatism, a la, ayn rand? or conservatism, a la going to church? b/c that’s the sort that has something to offer the poor guy in the hospital.

Very interesting points here. I agree with liberal men being cheap. A former friend moved in with her beyond liberal boyfriend. He makes about four times what she earns and accepts her paying half of all the bills. The conservative men I know are all too happy to take care of their families – having the wives stay home to raise their kids. I left a lucrative job to do that and I know many others who have done the same – from all income levels.

Troubled – I would not go. Why isn’t one of her liberal friends coming over? Too busy singing Obama’s praises to be concerned with Jane.

On another note, look at Democrat’s charitable contributions before they run for major office – a total joke.

Been there. The friendship between myself and someone I have known since 7th grade, been through a number of life changes [marriages, divorces, loss of a child, etc] ended over politics in 2004. I got tired of the drunken middle of the night calls where I would have “Bush lied, people died” yelled at me.

I would recommend Option 1 with the assumption that she would probably not be able to refrain from Leftist political evangelicalism. In which case, an open return plane ticket, motel money, etc. are a necessity. The effort would have been made, and if it fails no disgrace accrues to the one who tries to help and is rejected.

We have to realize that we are not a single country anymore. We are two hostile and incompatible nations crammed inside one set of borders. This is going to have to be resolved, and it is going to be messy. Split friendships are not the worst of that.

“We have to realize that we are not a single country anymore. We are two hostile and incompatible nations crammed inside one set of borders. This is going to have to be resolved, and it is going to be messy.”

Is THAT ever the truth!

We are in the midst of a cold civil war. It may very well cease being cold before it is all over. We conservatives would truly be better off if we could split along regional lines and let the leftists have their own separate, enemy nation.

But the left would never willingly consent to letting us go, simply because they are the parasite and we are the host. They need us for everything, and we need them for absolutely nothing. Without us, the left would end up freezing in the dark, much like North Korea writ large, suffering the same fate that the left would have imposed on us.

Yes, I am a secessionist, and I don’t care who hates me for saying it. The reason secession is a dirty word these days is because the left knows that, once we come to realize that secession is good and right, we will find the strength to bid the left goodbye once and for all.

Troubled’s problem is less with the friend, who sounds like a Grade A jerk as described, but with her own lack of honesty with others. There is no reason that the friend should not know her political views, they need not be expressed rudely or aggressively. Her friend’s reaction may be as she fears, but perhaps not. Perhaps there was a pleasant surprise in store. Her dishonesty, which she attempts to flatteringly pass off as consideration and “obeying the Golden Rule” has deprived her friend of the opportunity to respond to the information one way or the other. Instead of a real reaction to deal with, Troubled chooses to cower from some imaginary set of circumstances, and construct an entire reality around something that may or may not exist. I don’t think she’s much of a friend either. Her brand of passivity and dishonesty is every bit as toxic as her friend’s idiotic Obamamania.

I think you may have misread Troubled’s letter. You wrote, “Her dishonesty, which she attempts to flatteringly pass off as consideration and “obeying the Golden Rule”
What?
She mentioned the Golden Rule only in the context of saying that if her husband were as sick as Jane’s is, she’d want her friends to rally around her. She never “uses” the Golden Rule to disguise what you call her dishonesty. I think it’s really important to take note of all the facts before blasting off a comment. Troubled clearly states that she has high blood pressure. She also says this: “Throughout our decades of friendship, I never disclosed my political views to her. In the past, it never came up. But since 2008, I’ve deliberately remained silent because I have no doubt she’d drop me as a friend, consider me a jerk and disclose to our classmates from school — liberals all — what they would consider the error of my ways. The Democratic Party has become their religion. Being with Jane, especially, is like being with a compulsive proselytizer.”
Why in the world would a 65-year-old woman with high blood pressure want to get into a political argument she cannot possibly win with a bunch of intolerant women from her past? As at least one other comment mentioned, it’s not worth a stroke. Her health is a big issue here, and you skipped over it, calling a person who has chosen to remain silent “dishonest.” Silence can be life-saving, especially if you have high blood pressure. I hope you never do, but people who do (like my husband) have to be extremely careful about getting into disputes especially with intolerant people. It’s a painful death that can be avoided by keeping your mouth shut and letting the storm pass.
Not everyone, especially as they get older, is cut out for shrill political exchanges.

Often, our worst enemy is in our own head. For some reason we have defense mechanisms in our brain that sometimes lay out the worst possible (fictitious) scenarios, for coming events. And! Vice versa. At least that’s been my experience. These things never happen.
When I anticipate something that’s going to be a lot of fun…It’s a let down.
When I fret over coming doom, it doesn’t happen (well, not since I was ten and dad got home at 5:00).
I say— go with God, you’ll be fine.
Oh—of course that means allowing any contrary remarks to roll off.
Pity her,keeping in mind that her spiritual vacancy is a considerable source of her pain.
Yes–I’m saying to continue taking the high road, as much as you would like to let her know, there is no point in it.
I like to think myself as a cowboy. Still? Yeah still. However I don’t know much about cowboying.
I do realize though, if I climb on the back of a bronco, I’ll probably be thrown.

To Troubled in Tucson,
It seems to me your friendship w/Jane is based on a lie, ie she perceives you to be a liberal. Come clean & follow Belladonna’s Advice #1. If Jane accepts the conditions then visit & be the most kind, caring, & patient friend that has ever existed.——-And if she sees how kind, caring, & patient you are her animosity towards people who do not share her political views might wane. You might be able to sow a few seeds of tolerance.

I have found that most people regardless of their political views want the same things: a decent job, a family (however you want to define it), clean water & air, no world poverty, & most importantly peace.

While you are there, restart your relationship w/Jane by sharing common ideas, events, likes, dislikes, …. Good luck!

And if Jane doesn’t want you in her life after telling her that you’re a conservative.——–say goodbye & move on. There are at least a couple of billion people on this planet who would like to be your friend!

The other day, Rush Limbaugh warned whomever eventually wins the Republican nomination for the presidency to be prepared for an avalanche of vicious assaults from the re-elect Obama billion dollar attack machine.

Limbaugh was wrong in one respect: That onslaught began months ago with the only distinction being that the viciousness is mostly emanating from Obama acolytes in his mainstream media rather than directly from the White House.

All this year, we have witnessed every Republican hopeful mercilessly pilloried as soon as he or she gains any traction in the GOP sweepstakes. Pawlenty, Trump, Christie, Bachmann, Gingrich, Cain have each had their turn being attacked. If a day goes by without some leftist guttersnipe taking unsubstantiated pot shots at a candidate, Leno and Letterman are ready to ridicule them at night with nasty derision–all in good fun, of course.

The only Republican to escape leftist castigation, relatively, has been Mitt Romney, leading to conjecture that the left wants him to win the nomination because they expect to whup him, just as Carterites were eager to get at Ronald Reagan.

What was it Obama said about the need for more civility? Evidently, the mainstreamers never got that memo.

One of the leaders of the MSM attack pack, the Washington Post, was apparently running out of ammunition with which to abuse the latest target, Newt Gingrich, so WaPo’s Aaron Blake resorted to the internet to gather more dirt. Blake tweeted for his fellow Twitter tweeps to send him all “outlandish/incorrect predictions and quotes” by or about Gingrich that they could dig up or make up.

I have some liberal friends. Rabid liberals. I decided WTF, I’m coming out of the closet in which I hid my conservatism. I started sending them right wing commentaries and video clips. I said Obama was anti-America. They were shocked. Interestingly enough, we have been able to remain friends, actually good friends, BUT we no longer discuss politics.

This Jane woman sounds like she’s definitely NOT worth continuing to know. And what is Troubled going to do when she visits to support Jane while her husband is in a bad way? The whole set-up sounds like bad news. Sounds like it could only happen in Berkeley.

If Troubled decides to go, then I ditto #9. And make sure to have the Rush Limbaugh show on whenever possible. The Palin coffee mug too.

Sorry to break the news to you, but Jane is not your friend and maybe never was. What you describe is a selfish and intolerant individual and one way street “relationship”. That is not friendship. You have been taken advantage of, and you are considering submitting yourself to more of the same, to the possible detriment of your own health — plus you will have to pay for the privilege out of your own pocket.

Well,
THat’s a lot of money and time to spend out of the home budget for one’s own family responsibilities for a non-emergency, free labor, to someone the writer never sees, and cannot speak freely and be relaxed around without risking a nasty spat.
That’s NOT friendship. Send a food basket of nice thingys they can nibble on for a week with a kind note. That’s better than cooking for them, keeps it in the good spirit and NO STRIFE. Strife encourages people to SIN.. ie LYING to go along to get along. With a food gift,oOne has provided actual material help without compromising budgets, morals and personal duty to protect oneself from abuse.

This summer, I was subjected to a pedantic lecture on Social Security by a long-time friend. In discussion leading up to this, she was explaining that her parents (whom I’ve known for 20 years) were worrying to her on the phone that if the looming failure to agree to a budget meant that Social Security checks didn’t go out, that they would not be able to afford groceries. I said, “If they can’t afford groceries if the check is late, they have more problems than just that the check is late.” I know that there are people for whom it would have caused that problem, but her parents are not those people. She proceeded to lecture me about Social Security in a stunningly pedantic manner. I sat, steaming, contemplating whether to explode about the manner in which I was being treated as a guest at a dinner party in her house. The 20+ years of friendship kept me from storming out, but we haven’t seen any of the attendees since. I’d never expressed any views about Social Security, nor have I given thought to eliminating or reducing it, yet, she lectured me as though I had suggested it should be eliminated.

I think it happened because those “friends” believe that only the stupid or greedy could ever vote Republican. The arrogance disgusts me far more than the fact that they choose to vote differently than I do.

I have a rather strict definition of friendship. If can say whatever I darn well please when in their company they are a friend. If I have to constantly edit my comments around someone lest they take offense, they will never be more than an acquaintance.

Last year I ended a friendship because I found myself in just that position with someone with whom I thought I had enjoyed a high level of candor. From the beginning I was open about my own politics. After Obama’s election I started to notice a growing level of condescension towards my political views on her behalf. The last straw came when she chided me that I had a duty to support Obama because America could not afford another failed presidency. When I asked her why I should support a President whose policies would turn America into a nation I did not care to live in, she told me to stop being overly dramatic, that no one president had that much power. When I asked her what particular policies of Obama’s she supported, she told me she didn’t need to justify her veiws.

My friend is not a doctrinaire liberal, nor is she a policy wonk. Her analysis seldom got above the level of personalities. She’s a true naif who can’t spot an agenda when it smacks her with a 2 by 4. She also has this harebrained idea there is a duty to actively support whomever is elected, irregardless of their ideology. When Bush was in office, she was just as vocal in support of him and sent me articles from NRO and Fox. Once the political winds changed it was strictly links to the NY Times and CNN.

What made this truly intolerable was that 95% of the time I wasn’t the one who ever brought politics into the conversation. Why would I? Her level of analysis was too unformed to be interesting. Over the course of several months I warned her about the bashing. She persisted in asking my opinion on this and that while letting links to articles by Nick Kristof Fareed Zakaria speak for her. The more Obama’s approval ratings plummeted the snarker her attitude until I finally told her to take a hike.

I have 2 friends who have been close friends for 50 years: One a devout liberal, and the other independent and non-political. When the independent announced her vote for Bush in 2004, the liberal bit her. Yes, with her teeth on the arm. They are still very close, and the incident was nothing more than emotion taking over and was treated as such by both. Liberals’ political views are primarily emotion based. They need to be forgiven for their inability to control it. This liberal is a very sweet person and holds no resentment toward her friend or me (a dedicated conservative). She simply acted out, and couldn’t help it. The mind is not much engaged in the liberal when they connect with their politics. Forgive them, for they know not what they do.

Bit her? If one of my friends bit me, unless they were stumbling drunk at the time, I would never spend time with them again. I don’t think I could bring myself to have them charged with assault, but it might cross my mind.

This is the first time I’ve seen this issue addressed and I am really glad there are so many posts because I’ve been periodically haunting myself with the ghosts of friendships past for a decade or more as of this writing, and let this be my declaration that I will stop. I shared NC Mountain Girl’s definition of “friend.” I worked in a huge company and had literally hundreds of them until the nineties, when I made a career move that pretty much ruined a good run. It seems to me that the attitude of people in general changed very rapidly and I was clearly on the wrong side of the trend. My friendly style (some call it “spontaneous disclosure”) was turned against me with the help of many of those “friends,” and I quit the job and moved to my beach cabin to start my own gig. Since then my beach neighborhood has turned from quaint summer camps to low-income housing and people needing friends surround me. I’ve tried to help some of them, but they won’t have it. They grow to hate me and over time I can no longer make excuses for them. These posts remind me that there are unknown friends out there and I must continue to appreciate what I find in some of the strangers that come into my life and not wonder so much about the whys and what-fors of friends lost to the cold war.

I will soon be gathering with a group of longtime friends, at least a couple are progressive. I plan to arm myself first with facts on the admin. (and surrounding company i.e. czars, cronies, friends.) and issues. While I will not lob the first volley, I will certainly try to educate the lemmings if they provide an opening- calmly, rationally, and kindly. I really believe that many of them are truly ignorant of facts and simply see the window dressings, oblivious of what’s behind the curtain.

Your final sentence is one I completely agree with. It reminds me of a very interesting exchange my husband had with a distinguished conservative commentator. He asked the commentator whether her views had always been conservative and she replied, “No. When I was younger and working full time and being a wife and mother, I had no time to pay close attention to politics. As I grew older I had more free time and I began reading a great deal about current affairs and the more I learned the less I wanted to be a liberal. I realized that I’d imbibed it from my community and my family as a girl and then stayed on automatic pilot throughout my adulthood. When I started paying closer attention, I realized that none of the liberal beliefs made any sense to me, and I became a conservative.”

If you don’t think, and you don’t read, and you’re surrounded by lemmings, you’re not likely to see the light. I wish you luck, cam, in shining some light for your longtime friends. They’re unlikely to do it on their own without your help.
I hope for your sake they don’t become shrill and defensive, and keep their minds closed.

I feel you owe it to yourself and your very liberal, kool-aid drinking friend, to try to explain what conservatism really is. Be friendly, give Obama some kudos like he’s a good family man, and smooth, and smart. But his religious belief in the failed ideology of socialism clouds his common sense.

It doesn’t matter how smart someone is, no one can make socialism and COMMUNISM WORK IN THE LONG RUN.

Even if your friend can’t handle it and rejects your argument, you will have given her much to think about. You will be helping her.

A thought to keep in mind: 4 more yrs of an Obama admin and the USA will be toast, possibly 4 ever. Please spread the word! Thank you.

I have several liberal friends and family members whom I’ve had to take firmly in hand in order to prevent a barrage of attacks on my conservative beliefs. It was difficult, but if you’re determined to preserve the good parts of a relationship, you can patiently answer “We see things differently” and refuse to engage. It doesn’t do the relationship any good, of course, to have to refuse your friend the honor of engaging her views, but if she’s not up to it to doing it courteously, then she’s not up to it.

After years of this effort, at least I know that I’m not in the closet, so to speak, and it gets easier to short-circuit a rancorous conversation by signaling that it’s getting off limits. (It’s a little like the skill that’s necessary to deflect someone who insists on knowing when you’re going to marry, or reproduce, or who wants to obsess about your or her surgery or bowel movements.) Now and then, when I get an especially provocative email, I have to say, “Would you appreciate receiving copies of Mark Steyn articles from me? Because I can certainly oblige!”

I’ve actually lost only one friendship this way. After an impassioned email about how restaurants should be required to serve salt-free food, I must have been a little too harsh in my description of how much trouble I’d taken to move somewhere where I could escape a culture of that kind. When I received the reply, my correspondent and I cut each other off more or less simultaneously. But there wasn’t much of a friendship there to start with, so it was easily snuffed out. For my sister, or a dear friend of 30 years, I’ll try harder.